Kerala Court April 2008 Judgments

The Chairman, Kerala State Housing Board and Another Vs. K.V. Biju

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite party in OP.105/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants have sought for set aside the order of the Forum in OP.105/04, directing the opposite parties to register the release deed within 30 days and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he applied for the housing loan from the appellants in January, 2001 and Housing Board/appellants sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 27.3.01 and as directed the complainant executed the registered hypothicaton deed pledging his property and also took an LIC policy for Rs.25000/-. He demolished his building worth Rs.75000/- and prepared plan for constructing a building with an estimate of Rs.2.5 lakhs. He spent 50000/- for constructing the basement. But the loan was not disbursed. Hence he asked for getting the released deed executed with respect to his property. The same was not also not done. 3. It is the contention of the oppo...

V.S. Achuthanandan Vs. G. Kamalamma and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4221; 2008(2)KLJ417; 2008(3)KLT346

ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. The above three Crl.M.Cs are filed by different accused in C.C. No. 675/2007, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl.M.C. No. 4159/2003 is preferred by the 1st accused in the above case and Crl.M.C. No. 5631/2003 is preferred by the 3rd accused whereas Crl.M.C. No. 755/2004 is filed by the 2nd accused in the same case. Since these Crl.M.Cs are arising out of the same case, all the petitioners are accused in the very same case and factual background and arguments are more or less same, these Crl.M.Cs are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. As stated earlier, the petitioners herein are accused in C.C. No. 675/2007 which is a case instituted upon a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The above private complaint is preferred by one G. Kamalamma who is the 1st respondent in these Crl.M.Cs. The allegation in the complaint can be summarized as fo...

The Deputy Director, Coir Board, Market Ward, Alappuzha and Another Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.345/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants sought for setting aside the order of the Forum directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- with 9% interest and cost of Rs.300/- 2. The case of the complainant is that he was conducting coir business in the shed constructed by him and that the same collapsed in July 2001 due to heavy rain and wind. According to him he is a registered person under the Coir Board. He filed an application for financial assistance. The opposite parties inspected the premises also. After repeated requests on 14.08.2002 he received a reply that now such a scheme is not in existence. According to him there was a scheme in existence in 2001. Hence he has claimed for Rs.59,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties. 3. The opposite parties have filed version denying the existence of any such scheme. It is admitted that he was adviced to submit an application fo...

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. C.N. Vijayan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.353/2000 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.21,723/- with 10% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and cost of Rs.500/- 2. The case of the complainant is that his house was insured with the opposite parties for a total sum of Rs.2,10,000/- The house is insured for Rs.1,50,000/-; the compound wall for Rs.50,000/- and the household articles for Rs.10,000/- Some antisocial elements tresspassed into his house on 12.5.2000 at about 9.15 pm and damaged the house and household articles and also caused serious injuries to the complainant. The criminal case was registered under sections 145, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 427 of IPC. The loss was assessed as Rs.75,000/-. The complainant has effected the necessary reconstruction of the house and compound wall so as to live therein. The surveyor without any proper inspecti...

The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Joseph M ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 26.12.01 of the CDRF, Idukki in OP.No.67/01. The complaint in the aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties for getting the revised bill and the revised Provisional Invoice Card cancelled. The aforesaid case of the complainant was denied and disputed by the opposite party/KSEB. They relied on the Minimum Guarantee Agreement executed by the complainant and other like consumers. But the forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to collect only the minimum guarantee amount of Rs.22.60 or to collect the actual cost of the energy consumed by the complainant as a consumer. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred . 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We hear...

The Lic of India and Another Vs. Devasia

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP No.760/1999 of CDRF, Kottayam are under orders to pay the claim of the petitioner with interest at 9% per annum from 26.3.1998 till the date of payment within 45 days from the date of order (ie., 17.10.2003) failing which the interest will be 12 % per annum instead of 9%. A sum of Rs.1,000/- is also ordered as costs. It is aggrieved by the above directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that the complainants son Benny Sebastian had taken two life insurance policies from the opposite parties for Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 17.7.96 vide two separate policies. The said Benny Sebastian died on 25.5.97 due to chronic renal failure and consequent to the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company the complaint was filed praying for directions to pay the policy amount with interest, @ 18% per annum, compensation and cost. 3. In t...

K. Madhusoodanan Vs. Asst.Engineer K.S.E.B, Rep.by Secretary

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant is OP.411/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. 2. It is his case that he applied for shifting of electrical connection from the old building proposed to be demolished in 1994. The old building was demolished and the new building was constructed. The construction was completed in 2000. Then he applied for reconnection. The opposite party replied that the connection already stands dismantled on 8.11.96. Hence the complaint filed for shifting of the electrical connection to consumer No.5084 of the old building to the new building and also for damages of Rs.5000/-. 3. The opposite party has content that the consumer number stands in the name of Smt.K.Kamalakshy. There is no agreement in between the present complainant and the KSEB. The consumer number has been changed as per the provisions in Clause 15 of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. It is also contended that as per the provisions Supply of Electrical Ener...

K. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ68; 2008(2)KLT521

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioner (K. Radhakrishnan) in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the first accused in Crime No. 782 of 2006 of Taliparamba Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) 1956 ('I.T.P, Act' for short). The petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) under suspension and working as such in the District Crime Records Bureau (DCRB), Kannur. In Crl.M.C. No. 1005 of 2007 he seeks to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings in the above Crime. In Crl.M.C. No. 294 of 2008 he seeks to quash Annexure II final report and all further proceedings including C.C. No. 739 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thaliparamba.THE PROSECUTION CASE2. On 15-12-2006 at 2.45 p.m. one Thaikandy Balakrishnan who was the Vice Chairman of Taliparamba Municipality gave a statement to Habeeb Rahman, Dy. S.P., Kannur who was holding additional charge o...

Supply House Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)15VST207(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The Full Bench has this question before it:Whether the 'non-stick cookware' is classifiable under entry 5 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or whether the item would fall under entry 104 of the First Schedule, which provides for levy of tax on pressure cooker, cook and serve-ware, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry in this Schedule or in the Fifth Schedule?2. Entry 5 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act reads thus:____________________________________________________________________________________________Sl. No. | Description of the goods | Point of levy | Rate of tax____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. | Aluminium household utensils | At the point of first sale in | 4 per cent | whether made out of aluminium or| the State by a dealer who | | aluminium alloys | is liable lo tax under Sec- | | | tion 5 |____________________...

V. Aboobacker Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)27VST308(Ker)

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The revision petitioners are registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). All of them are engaged in the inter-State purchase of goods for sale in Kerala. During the relevant assessment years to which impugned orders of the Tribunal relate, the petitioners were found to have suppressed at least some of the inter-State purchases and consequently assessments were made after rejection of books of account and on estimation of turnover. Suppression in accounting of inter-State purchases was found by the Department after verification of their books of account with reference to arrival of goods to the petitioners entered in the registers maintained at the border check-posts in the State. Even though rejection of books of account was confirmed in two levels of appeals, including the Tribunal, some modifications have been effected in the estimation of turnover or the additions to the turnover made by the assess...